Union for Mediterranean Nightmare Changing into Chaos due to Revolutions, Incompatible Cultures, Corruption. Moroccan UfM Secretary General: West Cannot Dictate Us Its Democracy

Union for Mediterranean Nightmare Changing into Chaos due to Revolutions, Incompatible Cultures, Corruption. Moroccan UfM Secretary General: West Cannot Dictate Us Its Democracy

Posted by Anders under English, Euromed

Summary The globalist Business Insider 27 July 2011: “A Euro-Mediterranean community has now become an urgent necessity. Europe has technology and provides a secure framework for investment, but it is the southern Mediterranean that increasingly can point to strong economic growth. Europe is aging and will lose 20 million people by 2030, while the southern Mediterranean has a dynamic young population that desperately needs job opportunities.A Euro-Mediterranean monetary system is one goal in a Euro-Mediterranean Union leading to a Euro-African Union. By 2050, Europe and Africa together will have 2.5 billion people (Africans making out the vast majority), a quarter of the global population. With so much human potential, it will be possible to build on shared economic, social, and ecological strengths. Europe must strengthen its economic and political integration, and Africa must improve its governance by fighting corruption and establishing the rule of law more firmly. It may be that a Euro-Mediterranean and Euro-African Union is the only political project that is able to prevent World Government through a G-2 of the United States and China.” This is crazy: they want -just as with the Euro – to jump directly to the globalist goal – although all preconditions are impossible.
The globalists ignore the fact that the EU has now for more than 16 years unsuccessfully attempted to forge the Euro-Mediterranean / Euro-African Union.

It turns out that there existed intimate ties between the Rothschilds, their minions and Gaddafi´s son, Saif. This is embarassing, because prominent British leaders incl. Tony Blair are stated to have been advisers to the Gaddafis – especially on the release of the Lockerbie-bomber in return for oil!

The EU is in an awkward situation: Having built the Union for the Mediterranean on dictators it has now ousted, the EU sees the Union on its deathbed. But it hopes to revive it. Nevertheless, EU Commissioner Stefan Füle forwards such demands in the direction of human rights and democracy to be fulfilled by the partners that they make the Union impossible. For the demands are in contrast with the Koran/Islam. The new secretary general of the Union for the Mediterranean knows better and states that nobody can dictate western democracy to the Muslim countries who want the dictatorial Sharia to govern the entire world.

Today´s Euromediterranean zone is in chaos after the ongoing “Arab Spring” which is rather becoming an icy winter. The US wages war in the whole world against “terrorists” under the generic name of “Al Qaeda” – founded by the CIA as its faithful partner in the role of scapegoat for USA´s false flag operations. NATO and Pres. Obama now recognize the al Qaeda branch, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, as the new Libya´s government – and EU leaders hail the group as well!

Greece is regularly aflame – and after the declaration in western media of the “victory” of the “democratic” (95% want the Sharia) demonstraters in Egypt – the latter have found out that they were deceived, only losing a dying Mubarak, while his henchmen continue to rule. The rebels´victory and liberation in Libya is nothing but corporate New World Order occupation in order to rob this land, too, of resources. Furthermore, it is the beginning of a long bloody guerilla war by Gaddafi´s forces.

The biggest problem of the Union for the Mediterranean is the indiscriminate mass immigration to the EU, legally and in particular illegally. However, the EU keeps nearly everyone streaming into it – even making illegals legal citzens of the Union with a right to employment, if they beget a child, who is atomatically a union citizen (Zembrano Verdict). Danish and British politicians have admitted that the mass immigration has the purpose of tearing our historical roots away in order to change our societies radically, to clear the way for their NWO.

So, the Spiegel 26 Aug. 2011 has the following message on :”Germany´s Unhealty Obsession with Islam”: Not Islam is the problem, but our attitudes towards Islam. It is not the dispute over the phantasm of “Islam” that is productive, but the impartial analysis of the goals of the religio-political parties that are at odds in our country. This would relieve the Muslims and let them feel just like any other religious minority cultivating any other religion. (That they terrorize increasing districts of our cities, declaring them Sharia zones, making them no-go-zones for whites is ignored)Thus, problems relating to education, integration and equality could then be addressed as such, in a nuanced and appropriate manner, without being immediately framed within the context of a culture war. German Muslims would be relieved of the need to justify themselves every time an Islamist suicide bomber commits an attack somewhere in the world! This politically correct attitude is totally blind to the demands of the Koran to conquer the world by the sword (now by means of high birth rates), killing of infidels (sura 9:5 e.g.) , terror (sura 8:60). But does it work!

*

The Euromediterranean Project – later dubbed the Union for the Mediterranean – was a grand attempt to carry out part of the regionalisation and here programme of the Trilateral Commission/ Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is a survey of today´s situation in the Euromediterranean area: increasing chaos. But first what is going on in sick globalists´minds – for it is the explanation for what is now happening in North Africa. As for Libya and Syria: see here and here and here.

Here is the wishful utopia of the Corporate NWO – unabated in spite of more than 16 years of disproof of the thesis.
Business Insider 27 July 2011: A Euro-Mediterranean community has now become an urgent necessity. Europe has technology and provides a secure framework for investment, but it is the southern Mediterranean that increasingly can point to strong economic growth. Europe is aging and will lose 20 million people by 2030, while the southern Mediterranean has a dynamic young population that desperately needs job opportunities.

To boost investment in both directions, a zone of monetary stability should be created. A Euro-Mediterranean monetary system would avoid the discrepancy between euro- and dollar-denominated trade. Industrial re-deployment might also be the answer to outsourcing by European companies. At the same time, jobs mobility should replace unwanted migration. By 2050, Europe and Africa together will have 2.5 billion people (Africans making out the vast majority), a quarter of the global population. With so much human potential, it will be possible to build on shared economic, social, and ecological strengths. International trade must bring about a rise in social and environmental standards, which requires a multilateral Euro-Mediterranean system. A Euro-Mediterranean Union leading to a Euro-African Union could open the way to balanced mutual development. As Europe knows, constructing an economically and socially integrated zone offers the best opportunity to resolve conflicts and overcome political and cultural enmities. Europe must strengthen its economic and political integration, and Africa must improve its governance by fighting corruption and establishing the rule of law more firmly.
Building a joint future for Europe and Africa, starting with the Mediterranean, will be difficult, but that is no reason to delay. In fact, it may be that a Euro-Mediterranean and Euro-African Union is the only political project that is able to prevent World Government through a G-2 of the United States and China. Comment: This is crazy: they want -just as with the Euro – to jump directly to the globalist goal – although all preconditions are impossible.
They ignore the fact that the EU has now for more than 16 years unsuccessfully attempted to forge the Euro-Mediterranean / Euro-African Union.

Gaddafi´s Rothschild connection
The Daily Mail 23 oct. 2011: Gaddafi´s son, Saif, a former playboy who still owns a £10million house in London, last year described Mr Tony Blair as a ‘personal family friend’ who he said had visited Libya ‘many, many times’ since leaving Downing Street four years ago. He even claimed that Mr Blair had become an adviser to his family, an allegation which the former PM denied. Former EU Commissioner Lord Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Saif could also come under the spotlight. The pair met days before it emerged that Megrahi (Lockerbie bomber) was to be freed. They were both guests of billionaire financiers Jacob and Nat Rothschild at their Corfu villa in the summer of 2009. In a damning transcript of a conversation obtained by a Sunday newspaper between the pair, Saif told the freed bomber that his name had been ‘on the table in all commercial, oil and gas agreements we supervised during this period’. Weeks later Saif and Lord Mandelson attended a shooting party at the Rothschilds’ chateau-style mansion in Buckinghamshire.
Should Saif take the witness box in The Hague, he could even try to include Prince Andrew in his ‘web of friends’. The Duke of York was accused of holding secret ‘detailed discussions’ over the release of the Lockerbie bomber with Saif in 2009.

EU´s demands to the Arab Euromed. partners so unrealistic as to doom the project to its ultimate demise
EU Press Release 14 June 2011 – EU Commissioner Stefan Füle: Providing greater support to partners engaged in building deep and sustainable democracy is one of the cornerstones of the new approach outlined in the ENP Communication adopted on 25 May.
The Communication identifies some elements that are common to building a democracy that is both deep and sustainable. These are: * free and fair elections; * freedom of association, expression and assembly and a free press and media; * the rule of law administered by an independent judiciary and right to a fair trial; * fight against corruption; * security and law enforcement sector reform and the establishment of democratic control over armed and security forces.

These elements are the central benchmarks against which the EU will assess progress and adapt levels of support to its partners:
1. Commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms 2. Full compliance with their provisions 3. partnership with the Council of Europe, to support some of the countries in the South, starting from Morocco and Tunisia. 4. gender equality, 5. freedom of religion; 6. respect the rights of refugees and beneficiaries of international protection 7. and commitments in yet other areas.
In the next generation of Action Plans, we will suggest to partners that we focus our joint work on a limited number of short and medium-term priorities. The new approach to the ENP is based on mutual accountability and conditionality. Conditionality means that if a partner country wishes to obtain greater support from the EU then it will have to make progress towards significant political reforms, such as greater freedoms of expression and association; judicial reform; or fight against corruption. We will monitor the progress. Non-compliance implicates stop of funds. Comment: If these principles have to be observed – all “partner countries” will remain disqualified – because the principles are in conflict with Islam. Even EU`s pet, Morocco, gruesomely violates EU´s Fundamental Rights – on race, refugees and religion – for they are impossible for Islam to accept.

The Communication proposes two new instruments to channel EU support to civil society: a Civil Society Facility and a European Endowment for Democracy (A parallel to the US National Endowment for Democracy, a driving force behind the US instigated, now bloody revolts in the Arab world and here. The Civil Society Facility will help civil society organisations in our neighbourhood develop their ability to monitor reform and their role in implementing and evaluating EU programmes.

European Investment Bank 30 May 2011: Investment of over EUR 300 billion will be required by 2030 to modernise infrastructure and public services in the Mediterranean region. The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the European Union’s financial institution (and equally corrupt) and the leading financial investor in the Mediterranean via FEMIP, which was established in 2002. At end-2010, this commitment represented a total investment of more than EUR 12 billion. In 2010, FEMIP had already increased its business volume by 60% – to EUR 2.6 billion . Comment: Huge allocations largely disappeared in corruption by means of the incompetent or fraudulent European Investment Bank, which could not account for large sums, which ended with corrupt African “partners” and in taxfree havens.

ANSAmed 29 June 2011 – On the second day of the general strike and of violent demonstrations against the Parliament vote the new economic plan to save Greece from bankruptcy (78 billion euros), the entire centre of Athens has become an enormous battlefield, where smoke and flames are rising from burning rubbish containers amid clouds of teargas.

ANSAmed -29 June 2011 – Five months and one day after the first Friday protests which, on January 28, triggered the revolution that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down, Tahrir Square is once again the stage of clashes between protesters and police (below left) after the riots on April 9 in which two protesters were killed.

Middle East Online 6 July 2011: New head of a 43-nation Mediterranean Union.
Moroccan diplomat Youssef Amrani, new secretary general of the Union for the Mediterranean: ”Neither the UfM nor any other international organization are in a position to give certificates of democracy,” he added.”The time when one could dictate from the West the criteria for a country’s acceptance has gone.” Egypt and France co-chair the union while Spain hosts its headquarters in Barcelona.

Comment
An article in Der Spiegel 26 Aug. 2011:”Germany´s Unhealty Obsession with Islam” gives a pseudointellectual, politically correct explanation for the screwed-up view of the EU on Muslim immigrants. It states that not Islam is the problem, but our attitudes towards Islam. “It is not the dispute over the phantasm of “Islam” that is productive, but the impartial analysis of the goals of the religio-political parties that are at odds in our country,” the article states.

“This would remove an enormous burden from the everyday lives of Muslims. They could simply view themselves as a religious minority among others, like the Jews for example. A minority that seeks to practice its religion within the framework of what is legally permissible — nothing more and nothing less (se photos left and right). Problems relating to education, integration and equality could then be addressed as such, in a nuanced and appropriate manner, without being immediately framed within the context of a culture war. German Muslims would be relieved of the need to justify themselves every time an Islamist suicide bomber commits an attack somewhere in the world.

“Terrorism is a problem among culturally uprooted, politically radical angry young men, who are often educated and yet unsuccessful. They are men who rebel against a world in which they no longer feel at home” (so why not go back to where their ideals are being lived?). Therefore, the EU keeps nearly everyone streaming into it – even making illegals legal citzens of the Union with a right to employment, if they beget a child, who is atomatically a union citizen (Zembrano Verdict).

Thus the politically correct system confirms its own cataractous views: It makes Islam a religion just like any other – no more related to violence than other religions. Thereby, the author wilfully? overlooks a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam: The teachings of Christ, the New Testament, are commands to love your neighbour. The teachings of Mohammed (Koran and Hadiths) are to love other Muslims -but to kill (Sure 9:5, 4:89) the infidels, use terror against them (sura 8:60), wage war on the infidels till they submit to Islam (8:39, 8:69, 9:29) and to conquer their lands and take their houses (33:27), even racistically calling the “blear-eyed” guilty (sura 20:102). While Christ gave people an offer to take up his teachings voluntarily – Islam is to kill or enslave those who refuse. And history shows that is Muslim practice today – as it was Christian practice in former days. “Christian” religion rose after the popes of Rome became politicians (after 250 A.D.) – thus by breaking with the teachings of Christ waging wars by proxies, while orthodox Muslims follow Muhammad by not fighting with sword or high birth rates for the whole world to become Islamic.

The whole Mediterranean Project and the now dying Union for the Mediterranean are not built on ignorance of Islam. On the contrary! Danish and British politicians even actively staked on the incompatibility of the Western world and Islam to destroy its old culture and religious roots entirely. “Chaos out of Order” – but first create chaos – possibly “civil” wars. Depopulationists and see here – and here and here are deeply involved.

One response to “Union for Mediterranean Nightmare Changing into Chaos due to Revolutions, Incompatible Cultures, Corruption. Moroccan UfM Secretary General: West Cannot Dictate Us Its Democracy”

In Dronten no. 4 (“The Dodo” at the address Patriot.dk) I have dealt with the once world famous foreign correspondent and author, Douglas Reed, who went from being widely known and respected before, during and after the II.nd World War to becoming an expelled and completely forgotten person.

Why was he “forgotten”?

It was simply because he wrote about “The Jewish Question!”

International Jewry responded to his frank description of the problem with total censorship, so that his new books could no longer be printed and the old ones would disappear gradually from the bookstores and even from the library shelves.

After a short period of slandering he was no longer mentioned at all in the world’s media.

As the author Ivor Benson (who has himself written a book on this subject: The Zionist Factor) says in the foreword to Douglas Reeds masterpiece The Controversy of Zion, which had to wait 22 years before it could be published, “the adversity, which Reed encountered, would have made a lesser personality give up. But not he“.

After his expulsion from the zionist-controlled media-world, he found himself free to start this most outstanding work, which all the years as a foreign correspondent in Europe and his earlier books had only been a preparation and an education for. His vision expanded from year to year and from book to book. It was an education, which was not available in any university.”

He spent more than three years away from his family in the early fifties in New York Central Library or in front of his typewriter in modest surroundings in New York and in Montreal. He rewrote the whole book with an epilogue i 1956, where the uprising in Hungary and the Suez-war were scrutinized as further examples of the talmudic co-operation between communism and zionism. Then, as mentioned, the book had to wait 22 years for a possibility of getting published!

It is instructive to observe how Douglas Reed gradually penetrates deeper and deeper into the Jewish problem from that time, when he had hardly even thought about it in 1935 (as he writes in The controversy of Zion) until he delivers his harsh judgement in the shape of The controversy of Zion.

The mood of gloom and doom is not his own, but due to the gloomy character of the subject, as he says in the epilogue to the book. In the cause of his work he has felt the evil as an almost physical presence in the plans, he reveals. As “forces from some dinosaur-lair projected into the twentieth century.” But, he says, it is not for him to judge, what is evil. God must have had an intention, in his wisdom, to allow this evil to exist, possibly for the progress of the soul. But in that case he, himself, feels like being also a part of God’s creation, who has the duty to reveal this evil, so that human beings can be set free from it.

Ivor Benson follows this line of thought in the epilogue to his own book on the subject (1986) The Zionist Factor, as follows: “There is no Jewish problem per se, only a gigantic 20th century problem, in which the fate and responsibility of Jews and Christians are inseperably intertwined”. The irresponsible world power, built on money and dominated by Jews, is, in its outstretched cob-web something, that we have all allowed to grow big and strong through our irresponsibility.

But if this power has now grown so strong, that it cannot be stopped, but must be allowed to continue its predestined course, until, finally, it devours itself like a worldwide wolf, what use is it then to us to get to know and fully understand what goes on in the world?”

Ivor Benson answers this as follows: “a short answer is given in a christian concept with even older sources: “Thou shalt know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

In 1938 Reed wrote his first major – and world famous – book, Insanity Fair, which was published in at least 35 editions in English and published in danish, also in 1938, in 5 editions. In Danish the title was “Galskabens Kavalkade” (can still be ordered from the library). It is scarcely 400 pages and is a mixture of an autobiography and a political description of Europe up to- and during the Second World War.

His predictions of major political events were for many people surprisingly accurate at a time, when the “responsible politicians” of the West were acting in direct opposition to his advice and interpretations, and the unifying principle of the book is one long warning against the threat from Hitler-Germany.

But simultaneously he had, among other things, a few critical remarks about the jews, which he had observed and come to know during his many travels as a reporter in Europe. In his second book he deals with the subject of the jews a great deal more thoroughly. All of two chapters out of 37 are dedicated to his “becoming clear as crystal“ on the subject, as he says. This book from 1939 had the english title “Disgrace Abounding” and in danish (also 1939) “Grænseløs Skændsel”. (It can still be procured from deposit libraries). The book – almost 500 pages – was also a description of the prewar conditions, as he knew them in his capacity of being one of the leading foreign correspondents in Southeastern Europe, and through his close personal acquaintanceship with many of the leading politicians of the time. It was yet another long warning against Hitler-Germany and a reproach of the erroneous Western politics, in which he could not find the logic.

As far as the Jews are concerned, he is definitely far more crystally clear in this book than in the previous one, where there were actually just a few good-natured teasing remarks about them.

I have, in Dronten no. 6, (danish) reproduced both of these two chapters and a couple of other interesting descriptions of the Jews in Europe, seen through his eyes, under the menu (in Dronten): “Grænseløs Skændsel” (“Disgrace Abounding”).

By this time he no longer holds any doubt, that there is most certainly a serious Jewish problem. From the on he would get to study the problem thoroughly through the following ten years.

His well-intentioned advice, that the Jewish problem could only be solved by the Jews getting their own nation (but not by killing arabs), was abandoned by him again, when his studies of talmudic zionism, and the eventual establishment of Israel, demonstrated to him, that the Jewish question implied much more than just that, and was now so much bigger.

Also, he discovered, it had in reality been laid down in an ancient plan for world-conquest.

He wrote a few more books which he managed to get published somehow (see the list in Dronten no. 4, under the menu “Bibliography”- and now (in english) the homepage Douglas Reed Books, red.).

After the books Somewhere South of Suez (1949) and Far and Wide (1951), which are not translated into danish, Reed was practically banned by the most important publishers and bookstorechains because of his ever more clear description of the Jewish problem. He does not end up by being optimistic concerning the solution to the problem, as he actually thinks that only God can solve it – in time. Nevertheless, it is also his opinion, that the suffering of mankind, including the Jews, which will result in the meantime, until this solution will appear, may be reduced and shortened by people learning the truth about “The Contorversy of Zion”. In this issue of Dronten (no. 6), I have translated, into danish, two more chapters of this – in my opinion – vital work. With the knowledge, which the book gives the reader, he understands the real background of the invasion of foreigners in The West, the globalisation and the break-down of nations, culture and morals. Here, finally, I will relay Douglas Reeds own description of the problems of the banning of Disgrace Abounding – “Aftertale” in the book), and in this way introduce this, his encyclopaedic masterpiece, The Controversy of Zion”:

………”Chance, and possibly my own sense of timing, enabled me to write additional chapters for Insanity Fair immediately after publication, and this time the same thing has happened again. But on this occasion chance has enabled me, in the additional chapter, to give you the best possible example of the way organized world-Jewry works and of the immense power it wields in goading world-opinion against Germany. I imagine anybody who has read these two books will realize that I hold Germany to be a menace to England, but that I do not identify the cause of England with that of the foreign Jews.

After I wrote Insanity Fair I was swamped by offers from American publishers for my next book. I signed a contract with one firm. When I began Disgrace Abounding I did not know that it would be an anti-Semitic book. The anti-Semitic part is the result of my observation of the Jews in the last year and of my conviction that the mass influx of Jews to England is a political mistake and a national misfortune.

The American publisher, after reading Disgrace Abounding, declined to publish on the ground that the Semitic part was ‘slanderous and libellous’. Read the Jewish part for yourself and see if this is true. I, for my part, declined to have the book published anywhere without the Jewish chapters. The real meaning of that decision is that, in America, you may ‘slander and libel’ Germany as much as you like, and be paid for it, but you must not discuss the Jewish problem, you must not assert that there is a Jewish problem. Other American publishers declined the book on the grounds that they could not publish the Jewish chapters. One of them, not a Jew, said that an American publisher would court misfortune by publishing it, because 90 per cent of the American newspapers are Jewish, and the Jewish influence extends in similar proportion throughout the whole ring of trades connected with publishing.

I see very little difference between the Jewish and the Hitlerist method, in this matter of free speech and free discussion. The Jews are for free attacks on Germany, nothing else. The same thing happened in some of the Scandinavian countries, where Insanity Fair had great success and where publishers were clamouring for the next book – until they saw the Jewish chapters. They asked to be allowed to publish the book without them. I refused. The same thing happened in France even with Insanity Fair, where a publisher contracted for the book who apparently could not read English and only realized when he saw the French translation that there was a few passages in it which he did not consider sufficiently favourable to the Jews. He demanded their excision, I refused, and he sold the contract to another firm.

So only in England, as yet, and possibly in France — although I do not yet know whether this book will appear in France — may a non-Jew openly discuss the for and against of the Jewish question.

The importance of this, for you, is that you should realize that what is presented to you as ‘American approval’ or ‘American disapproval’ of this or that action of British policy is not American but Jewish opinion, and that this puts quite another face on the matter. If you are to fight Germany again, you must do it for England’s sake. You must not allow yourselves to be egged on by Jews masquerading to-day as ‘German public opinion’, to-morrow as ‘Czechoslovak public opinion’, the day after as ‘English public opinion’, and the next day as ‘American public opinion’. If England suffers disaster in coming years, the Jews who have come to England in these latter years will not suffer that misfortune in like measure; they will not feel it as Englishmen will feel it, they will prosper in chaos, and when they feel that a lean time is coming for them they will make up their minds to sail away.

As I came up the Thames I wondered what my own future would be. I had promised myself to decide within a very few days whether I would continue to write about the daily European scene or whether I would cut loose [ed: altogether?] together, go to Polynesia, Patagonia or Peking, write about other things than Hitler’s eternal invasions.

I wondered whether, the next time I left England, I should go in one of those steamers white and gold to some far distant foreign clime. The decision lay before me. I had a few days’ time. While I was locked up in the Legation at Prague, Disgrace Abounding was published – the most curious things happen to my books. After my departure from Prague I read the first reviews of it. Somebody spoke compassionately of my inferiority complex. I never knew, until I wrote Insanity Fair, what an inferiority complex was, or that I had one. To understand these things you have to sit at the feet of some venerable Jewish professor in Vienna, who soothes you by telling you that your faults are not your own but the products of your ancestors’ hereditary alcoholism, or something of that sort, and this wise counsel gives you new strength. The gins of the fathers. – Kraft durch Freud.

I have no inferiority complex, but only the most normal longings for England to be better. I have a heavy foreboding for England, whose rulers have made every mistake they could. I want to see England safe at home and abroad. Safe at home for the British Derelict Aryans, not for the Foreign Non-Aryans. Safe abroad from Germany.

Neither of these things is being done. The danger of a German ultimatum has been drawing daily nearer. What shall it profit Britain if she lose her whole Empire and gain only the Jews? Now, at the last moment, a faint hope offers that a stand will be made – over Poland. Then why not for Czecho-Slovakia? Why have we handed over the Czech Army, the Czech Air Force, the Skoda Works, the Czech gold, to Germany? If we were from the beginning prepared to make this stand, we should have made it years ago. Then you would have had none of this trouble. You could have satisfied Germany’s just grievances – but you could have compelled her to keep the peace…….”

“The ruder nations of Europe are willing slaves of Jewish usury”, Chamberlain wrote that during the 19th Century “a great change has taken place. . . today Herder could say the same of by far the greatest

201

part of our civilized world . . . The direct influence of Judaism on the 19th Century thus becomes one of the burning subjects of the day. We have to deal here with a question affecting not only the present, but also the future of the world”.

With the formation of the World Zionist Organization, which the great governments of the West were to treat, in effect, as an authority superior to themselves, the burning subject began to mould the entire shape of events. That it affected “the future of the world” is plainly seen in 1956, when this book is conc1uded; from the start of that year the political leaders of the remaining great powers of the West, Britain and America, observed in tones of sad surprise that the next world war might at any time break out in the place where they had set up “the Jewish State”, and they hastened to and fro across the ocean in the effort to concert some way of preventing that consummation.